1. During the course of this inquiry, there has
been a general consensus amongst witnesses that the role of investigative
journalism is to bring to light things that are not in the public
domain and to help hold those in positions of power at a local,
national and international level to account. This happens at various
levels of authority. There is a public interest in exposing wrong-doing
by a nurse in a local hospital or a clerk in a County Court just
as there is in exposing Members of Parliament and Chief Executives
of large corporations. The role of investigative journalism in
putting previously unreported information into the public domain
and providing the stimulus for public debate is immensely important.

2. For this to be effective there must be two
distinct parts. First there must be an investigatorthe
author or journalist, and secondly his/her findings must be disseminatedby
the publisher or broadcaster. Investigative journalism cannot
fulfil its proper role if these two processes are not working
together. At present the traditional balance is being threatened
by profound changes which pose economic, legal and regulatory
challenges for the future of investigative journalism.

3. There is no universally accepted definition
of what constitutes investigative journalism. During the course
of this inquiry we have heard differing views with some witnesses
defining it narrowly as a specific genre of journalism and others
claiming that all journalism is investigative. Paul Lashmar, investigative
journalist and Lecturer in Journalism from Brunel University,
said that those editors who claimed all journalists should be
investigative were generally those who did not fund their staff
to do that kind of work.[1]

4. For the purpose of this inquiry, we have taken
investigative journalism to mean reporting which requires a significant
investment, in terms of resource and/or funding; which runs a
high risk of potential litigation; and whichmost importantlyuncovers
issues which are in the public interest but which were not hitherto
on the public agenda.

5. Although investigative journalism is difficult
to define precisely, it is often easy to recognise. As it requires
significant investment, investigative reporting is often subsidised
and validated by reputable publishers and broadcasters, although
serious investigative reports are increasingly only published
online, for example, in some of the work of the Bureau for Investigative
Journalism or ProPublica in the United States of America. Stories
identified to us by witnesses as examples of good investigative
journalism included:

BBC's Panorama programme first aired on 21 May
2011 exposing abuse at Winterbourne View care home, which used
secret filming;

The Guardian's exposé of phone-hacking
by journalists which was uncovered after an investigation of several
years by reporter Nick Davies. Details were first published on
8 July 2009;

The News of the World's 'sting', exposing corruption
by Pakistani cricketers, published on 29 August 2010;

The Daily Telegraph's exposé of MPs
expenses which was based on information sold to the newspaper.
Details of this were first published on 8 May 2009;

The Maidenhead Advertiser's September 2011 report
on a secret turn-around plan containing proposals to cut jobs
and beds at a local hospital;

The Art Newspaper's investigation, starting in
2000, which led to the return of the 12th Century Benevento missal
to a church in Italy from where it went missing during the Second
World War. This is an example of investigative and campaigning
journalism in a specialist field;

The Sun's investigation, published on 14 September
2006, which exposed that an HIV-positive security guard had knowingly
infected six women; and

Al Jazeera's Africa Investigates series in which
Al Jazeera provided African journalists with "the opportunity
to do the kind of journalism that Panorama or Dispatches might
do in this country, with all the support, money, training, legal
support and expertise that we can supply to them to allow them
to do their jobs properly."[2]
Investigations were conducted into issues such as illegal logging
in Sierra Leone.

6. Despite these and many other recent examples
of investigative reporting, these are difficult times for journalism
more generally. The phone-hacking scandal, exposed by The Guardian
reporter Nick Davies, has led to the closure of Britain's best
selling tabloid newspaper, The News of the World, as well as the
resignation of former newspaper editors and senior members of
the Metropolitan Police Service. Re-examination of the report
for the Information Commissioner by the Surveillance Studies Network
of six years ago[3] has
further exposed the apparently widespread use of unlawful methods
to gather information, and among those bodies examining the issues
raised are:

(a) Lord Justice Leveson's Inquiry into the Culture,
Practice and Ethics of the press; the House of Commons Culture,
Media and Sport Committee's inquiries into Phone Hacking and Media
Plurality;

(b) The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Privacy
and Injunctions' inquiry into privacy, anonymised injunctions
and super-injunctions;

(c) The Parliamentary Joint Committee's report
on the Draft Defamation Bill;[4]
and

(d) The report by Dame Elizabeth Filkin on the
relationship between the Metropolitan Police Service and the media[5]
published in January 2012.

We also await the outcome of a public consultation
on proposals for reform of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC)
by Lord Hunt of Wirral, the new Chairman of the PCC. The Government's
Green Paper on a new Communications Bill will also be published
in the near future.

7. In this report, we do not attempt to suggest
specific solutions to issues which are being considered in other
forums. Our aim is to ensure that the media landscape in which
serious investigative journalism operates is analysed, which in
turn should assist these other inquiries since whatever changes
are introduced should be tailored to the needs of the future and
not of the past. In this regard, we agree with the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport's (DCMS) submission to this inquiry
which states that: "We need some new ground rules [in media
regulation as a result of the phone-hacking scandal], but we must
also be careful not to discard the quality investigative journalism
that is an integral part of our media."[6]

8. Investigative journalism has a history going
back centuries. However, even before the current scandal started
to unfold fully, newspapers in the UK were under threat; the combined
effect of declining newspaper readership and the migration of
classified advertising to online have coincided with the severe
economic recession. As a result local newspapers have been forced
to close and many journalists and newspaper staff have lost their
jobs.

9. As outlined in our previous report on the
Regulation of Television Advertising, broadcasting has also faced
economic pressures in recent years. Broadcasters, to a lesser
extent than the printed press, have seen advertising revenues
decline as some advertisers who in the past paid for display advertising
on television have moved towards classified and search advertising
online.[7] The BBC, which
is funded by the television licence fee and therefore not dependent
on advertising, is also facing a reduction in its incomeapproximately
16% between now and 2016[8]as
a result of the last licence fee settlement.

10. These economic pressures threaten the positive
role played by traditional media which inform opinion, encourage
debate and enable national discussion of the country's affairs.
In our inquiry we have considered, in particular, the way in which
investigative journalism sustains debate on matters of serious
public interest.

11. If investigative journalism is to fulfil
its proper role, it is essential that journalists act with integrity.
A high price can be paid as a result of material they publish,
witness the uncovering of the Watergate Scandal in the USA which
led to President Nixon's resignation in August 1974.

12. In many circumstances it is both necessary
and appropriate to regulate the media. To effectively manage the
spectrum, for example, which is a finite resource, licences are
issued by the media regulator Ofcom. In return for access to this
important resource, broadcasters commit to a set of rules outlined
in the Ofcom Broadcasting Code. This includes a duty for all broadcasters
"to ensure that news, in whatever form, is reported with
due accuracy and presented with due impartiality."[9]
In the case of the BBC, it receives public money through the licence
fee and its Charter details the way it should operate.

13. For the printed press no such licence is
necessary. Anyone with sufficient means to do so can print and
circulate information in print. Newspapers depend on readers buying
their papers, or subscribing to their websites, to remain in business.
To secure and maintain their readership, national and local newspapers
develop a brand with which their readers identify and in which
they trust. To command loyalty, they ensure that the information
they publish is informative, entertaining and, at best, accurate.
This was highlighted to us by the Chartered Institute of Journalists
in their evidence: "Those publications that cut back their
journalism content quickly find their circulation figures drop,
which in turn puts off advertisers. These are the market forces
which drive the inclusion of journalism in a publication."[10]

14. Across the newspaper industry certain standards
of accuracy are encouraged through a type of industry self-regulation
as outlined in the Editors' Code of Practice. This voluntary Code,
written by serving national and local newspaper editors and enforced
by the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), a body of industry-led
oversight of which membership is also voluntary, aims to ensure
that what is printed in newspapers is accurate. It also offers
a means of recourse to people who believe that inaccurate information
has been published. Unlike the statutory regulator for broadcast
media, Ofcom, the PCC does not have the power to impose fines
for breaches of the Editors' Code, although it can bring about
certain remedies such as requiring the publication of a correction
or an apology.[11]

15. As outlined in our Committee's report into
the ownership of the news published in 2008: "the traditional
media are under very considerable competitive pressure. Newspapers,
television and radio are losing advertising revenue to the internet,
with the result that costs are being cut and economies are being
made in traditional news gathering, ranging from journalists based
overseas, to local journalists at home."[12]
Investigative journalism is especially resource intensive, requires
long-term investment with no guaranteed return, involves some
risk of litigation, and often does not deliver large reader or
audience figures. It is therefore particularly vulnerable to economic
pressures. This is especially evident at a local level and we
have heard evidence that long-term investigations into local issues
which require staff commitment and involve legal risk are no longer
pursued as often as they were in the past. Given these profound
challenges facing the newspaper industry, we believe that now
is the right time to consider the prospects for investigative
journalism.

Legal, regulatory and political
context

16. Debate about regulation has always been an
integral part of media politics, leading to impassioned debates
about the legitimacy of imposing obligations or restrictions on
a free press. For example, Sir David Calcutt conducted two
reviews of self-regulation of the press in the 1990s;[13]
there is a recurring debate around the purpose and goals of the
BBC at the time of Charter renewal; and media legislation has
been debated and passed by Parliament in the Broadcasting Acts
of 1990 and 1996, the Communications Act 2003, and in subsequent
legislation with relevance in this area such as the Bribery Act
2010 and the Digital Economy Act 2010.

17. However, media regulation is again at the
forefront of the political agenda in the wake of the phone-hacking
scandal which has raised serious questions about standards and
ethics in the press. Furthermore, NewsCorp's proposed bid for
the remaining shares in BSkyB during the summer of 2011 brought
the issue of media plurality back to the forefront of political
debate.

18. The legal and regulatory background is complicated
because it involves both statutory and self-regulation, as well
as three distinct legal codes: newspapers and publishing in respect
of 'print on paper', broadcasting regulations for traditional
radio and television, and 'electronic commerce law' in respect
of digitally delivered material. These can be further complicated
by jurisdictional questions arising from the worldwide nature
of the internet.

19. Publishers have traditionally tended to be
better-financed than journalists, and thus an easier target of
the law and regulations. They have responded by exercising editorial
control on their authors.

20. This has helped define the relationship between
journalist and publisher, who generally does not want to become
embroiled in expensive litigation, regulatory dispute or be subject
to financial penalties. It is in the publisher's interests to
ensure articles are within the laws and regulatory codes. This
in turn should, in theory, give the reader/listener confidence
in the integrity of what is produced under the publisher's imprint.

21. In addition, we heard from a number of editors
that their particular long-term brand strategy also creates incentives
for accuracy, reliability and even investment in investigative
journalism.

22. Mr Alan Rusbridger, Editor of The Guardian,
for example, spoke about the way The Guardian's investment in
investigative work becomes a reason for consumers to believe in
the brand's broader values. He said: "in a brand sense ...
you hope people associate The Guardian with a kind of journalism
and integrity".[14]
In turn, he claims these associations establish "the sort
of brand reputation of being a paper that does brave things and
tackles big powerful centres of power. I think in the long term
that is distinctive and wins tremendous appreciation and respect
from readers and non-readers".[15]

23. Of course, the fact that different media
brands appeal to different groups of people has consequences for
the type of journalistic content editors invest in and seek to
associate with their brand.

24. Mr Richard Caseby, Managing Editor of
The Sun, for example, described The Sun's brand as being something
which "connects with the readers. It is like meeting the
man down in the pub who always has a really interesting story
to tell and you never know quite what he is going to say, and
the thing is he always says it in a really witty way."[16]
Living up to this brand when it comes to investigative journalism,
therefore, has clear implications. Mr. Caseby explained how this
works, claiming that The Sun, for example, may tend to focus more
of its investigations on: "things like holiday rip-offs,
loan shark thugs, [and] people who prey on the elderly".[17]
It is important to be aware, therefore, that strategic thinking
about their brand on the part of newspapers can also act as a
spur to sustained investment in investigative journalism. However,
the types and forms that result are likely to vary in line with
the distinctions and variety of brands in the media market.

This report

25. The starting point for this inquiry, as already
mentioned, has been that responsible investigative journalism
should be protected and encouraged given its important role in
our democracy.

26. This report outlines the current media landscape
focussing on its relationship with investigative journalism. We
first look at the challenges and opportunities now facing it and
then consider ownership, funding and the impact of media convergence.
Finally we identify a number of issues surrounding the training
of tomorrow's investigative journalists.

27. We would like to thank everyone who gave
evidence to us, both at oral evidence sessions which we held between
September and December 2011 and in writing. We also wish to thank
our Specialist Adviser, Professor Steven Barnett from the
University of Westminster. We have been fortunate to benefit from
his expertise throughout the course of this inquiry.

28. We will be submitting a copy of this report
to the Government, to Lord Justice Leveson and to the Joint Committee
on Privacy and Injunctions. We hope that they, together with Lord
Hunt of Wirral who is conducting an internal review of the Press
Complaints Commission (PCC), will find this a useful overview
and that they will carefully consider the implications for investigative
journalism of any regulatory or legislative proposals which they
may make as part of their future deliberations.